a3dtot

So, a3dtot, you KNOW god exists because the idea... makes you feel good? Is that about right?

Pfft... Next please!

Actually I would have to say that for a good part of my life it made it more difficult and painful, not feel good.Because I do not fit the mode and because I claim to know that God exist and that I and others can communicate with him I have often been labeled a freak. I am posting on an atheist site to try and find good responses and replies because most of the religous community think I'm a heretic. I am thankful that at least here on this site I am treated only as delusional. I can live with that.

Love is the most important thing to me. What is most important to you?

There are many things that are important to me.I don't believe that I could rank them accurately, and their importance changes depending on circumstances.

Love is certainly right up there but the term has so many meanings that it would take a separate topic to unpack it all.

If pressed I think I'd say my relationships are what give my life most meaning - but even that is not simple.Some relationships include one or other concept of love and some do not, or hardly any - I don't love my business clients but they are hugely important to my life. And I feel "love" for starving orphan kids and raped refugee mothers in remote parts of the world but it's practically useless because I have no relationship with them.I sponsor a couple of orphan girls and that is very high on my list of what's important - see, I have a relationship with them.Plenty other things are important but that will take us way off topic.

Astreja in answer to your question I don't think there is anything more than love. To convert ourselves (with what I believe to be the creator's help) from non loving or incorrect loving beings to a being of perfect love is the only point of existence. Love is an action, a way of living and perceiving life and as we begin to get better at it we begin to act upon it. Love and the sharing of love's perfection is something we could do for an eternity. I do believe it could take quite awhile to become perfect in love and the main thing we have to master is ourselves. It is not just a series of lessons that we must learn but a change in who we are and what we percieve.

Please accept my congrats on your new grandchild, as well, a3dtot. I presume the new tot was presented in full 3D .

I appreciate that you are not so burdened by theistic dogma that you are unable to make your own determinations, and you have clearly given this life=love idea a great deal of consideration. I agree that this world would be enormously improved if everyone demonstrated more love, acceptance, and empathy toward one another.

My only question is why is a creator/deity required for it to work? Do you believe people incapable of behaving lovingly towards one another without the influence of a god?

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Love is an emotion we feel. It wouldn’t exist without our brains so it could not have existed before living things evolved. That being the case, this god of yours could not have created the universe, the Earth or life because it logically could not have existed before emotions came into being. Of course, there isn’t a shred of solid evidence to show that your god ever actually existed or exists now. You only imagine it exists.

My understanding of free will is not so much about the physical situations that we are in but on the perceptions we have of them. Just to clarify, I believe that every experience in the physical world is pre-destined. I know that this may bring on some responses but that is ok. For me free will is not in choosing what we do but what we perceive.

Great. Here we have yet another religious believer who redefines words to mean the opposite of their common usage meanings. First, free will means the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion, which is the exact opposite of predestined and all about choosing what we do. Second, how do you reconcile this with your earlier statement that proof of your god’s existence would violate your free will? You haven’t answered my questions in this post satisfactorily.

My statement was concerning a physical manifestation of God would then disallow no belief. I have never seen God so although I know he exist I did not know or understand who or what he was.

I asked you how the physical manifestation of everything else around you doesn’t violate your free will by disallowing no belief in those things and you evaded those questions. Please answer the questions in the post of mine I linked to above.

Again, if you are so certain your god exists then you should have no trouble validating that belief. Please return to this thread and answer the questions in the OP. Give us a factual description of your god. Provide enough solid evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. Show us what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination.

Logged

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. – David Hume 1711–1776

I get what you are saying, a3dtot. Love is indeed an important aspect for the human species. Let’s also remember the possible view that hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is. Marriage teaches us that. While love can be thought of as only an emotion, it can be argued that it causes us to want to stand in each other’s shoes. I can understand an argument for love, broadly extended to all things, being perhaps the most important thing that there is.

However, love is not god - love is love, a god is a god, and there is no reason to change definitions to make a view of god that suits a broad purpose of your human views.

I don’t quite understand why having this view needs to make life difficult and painful. I find the realization of the ultimate importance of love, and the understanding that no god has ever existed at all, absolutely fine. I also believe there are types of belief systems in our world that would allow these views and provide support as a “religion.” I find that if a religion excludes anyone for any reason, it is to be avoided. In fact it is my argument with most of Christianity. Take Quakerism – I believe most views are acceptable there. I would attend sometimes if I could get my wife to go too, although I’m lazy enough to use that as an excuse. Also I believe the Universalist church would be as accepting of witches and Krishnas as atheists and Jews. I believe some eastern religions may suit the purpose for one who has been labeled a heretic by their own religion.

Of course with as many belief systems as humans, we are all on our own!

a3dtot

Dumpsterfire thank you for the congrats and she is beautiful.You asked me why I believe that love is a diety or God. When my first marriage ended I was very upset, hurt and angry and my reaction to it was pretty bad. I felt that I had loved her and she loved me and when this belief was destroyed so was I. This was in my youth and I would say I over reacted but it did lead me to question my own feelings. After a time of being wild and hating God I finally turned back to him but with new questions. These were questions about my emotions and why what I believed to be love was so obviously wrong. What I learned over the next couple of years has determined my life ever since. What I had thought was love was nothing more than my own ideas of love and the ideas that I had learned from those around me. My concept of love was most likely the same as the majority of people. What I thought was my love for my ex was actually a love of an idea of her, an idea of marriage and when she and our marriage did not meet those expectations my belief in my own life and identity were disrupted. I loved her for who I wanted her to be, of course that is not how I experienced it. I honestly believed that I loved her but I did not. As I began to learn from God I realized that there is a form of love that is perfect but it is a form of love I did not understand or know how to do. This is why I believe that Love in it's perfect form is God. At that time I would not call myself a christian. I knew a Creator of some kind existed but still did not know what it was. As I began to try and understand perfect love I found that I had no point of reference. I did not know how to understand perfect love. As I began to study different religions, theologies and concepts I began reading about Jesus. Here was an example of that perfect love that I was trying to understand. What I got from the story and teachings of Jesus was a man who taught a form of love that was perfect. Concepts of loving your enemies or love those who would do bad things to you. The willingness to not only give in teaching but also the willingness to give his life for others. His story is one of bringing love to a world that did not have this kind of perfect love. If a God does exist then why create us? We are not exactly obediant, we are actually the opposite. The only reason I could find that we would be created was to give us life. A perfect gift of love and the purpose of that gift was so that one day we would learn the true value of perfect love and decide to choose it as our only motivation in life.

Actually, I asked why you feel a god is necessary for humans to behave more lovingly towards one another.

Quote

When my first marriage ended I was very upset, hurt and angry and my reaction to it was pretty bad. I felt that I had loved her and she loved me and when this belief was destroyed so was I. This was in my youth and I would say I over reacted but it did lead me to question my own feelings. After a time of being wild and hating God I finally turned back to him but with new questions. These were questions about my emotions and why what I believed to be love was so obviously wrong. What I learned over the next couple of years has determined my life ever since.

It is human nature to learn from our mistakes and modify our approach to minimize our potential for suffering. You came to the conclusion that the best way for you to do this (in the context of a romantic relationship, anyway) is by being more accepting of your partner in the future. Again, it doesn't seem that divine intervention would be necessary for you to have come to this conclusion.

Quote

At that time I would not call myself a christian. I knew a Creator of some kind existed but still did not know what it was.

So even before your post-divorce epiphany you somehow "knew" that a god exists. The obvious question would be what evidence led you to this knowledge? Someone who is already completely convinced of the existence of god would be compelled to credit him for any rosy new perspective on life and love, of course.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Astreja in answer to your question I don't think there is anything more than love.

I have a hunch that there's something else, so I'm going to say "yes" to the love part but keep exploring the question. (At very least, if love really is at the centre of all existence I'll end up back there eventually. In the meantime, I may discover something amazing.)

Love is an emotion we feel. It wouldn’t exist without our brains so it could not have existed before living things evolved. That being the case, this god of yours could not have created the universe, the Earth or life because it logically could not have existed before emotions came into being. Of course, there isn’t a shred of solid evidence to show that your god ever actually existed or exists now. You only imagine it exists.

Emotion Maybe... Love can't exist without consciousness... An eternal consciousness such as a god could Love, and actually be the only one capable of unrelenting love, with the assumption of a God a3dot's argument works... Yours doesn't because it violates his basic assumption. You could argue there is no God, however then there really isn't a point for the rest of your argument if your attacking him on a base assumption. Since you didn't you entertain (for argumentations sake) the Idea of a god and since you do that the side of logic falls with a3dot

Logged

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Any assumption that such a thing exists - even just as an assumption for the purpose of debate - is an extraordinary claim. I do not see how we can sensibly proceed without procuring evidence for an "eternal consciousness"

But even without the positive establishment of consciousness, we still know that love exists. We can actually watch it happening inside someones mind, and we can observe its effects on the individuals decision making. Love feels amazing, and I've written a lot of soppy poetry under it's influence, but in a strictly scientific sense it is the same reaction we get to satisfying an addiction, be it for food, drugs, money, or anything else. Removing its mystification should not lower its importance in anyones opinion, though. It's still an amazing and crucial adaptation.

Logged

"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

Emotion Maybe... Love can't exist without consciousness... An eternal consciousness such as a god could Love, and actually be the only one capable of unrelenting love, with the assumption of a God a3dot's argument works... Yours doesn't because it violates his basic assumption.

An argument based on an assumption is unsound unless you can prove the assumption is true. However, he isn’t even making an argument. Read his wall of text again. It consists of nothing more than his irrational beliefs, his lack of proof and unsubstantiated claims stated as facts.

Logged

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. – David Hume 1711–1776

Love is an emotion we feel. It wouldn’t exist without our brains so it could not have existed before living things evolved. That being the case, this god of yours could not have created the universe, the Earth or life because it logically could not have existed before emotions came into being. Of course, there isn’t a shred of solid evidence to show that your god ever actually existed or exists now. You only imagine it exists.

Emotion Maybe... Love can't exist without consciousness... An eternal consciousness such as a god could Love, and actually be the only one capable of unrelenting love, with the assumption of a God a3dot's argument works... Yours doesn't because it violates his basic assumption. You could argue there is no God, however then there really isn't a point for the rest of your argument if your attacking him on a base assumption. Since you didn't you entertain (for argumentations sake) the Idea of a god and since you do that the side of logic falls with a3dot

Maybe you are right, mhaberling, but what do you have as evidence of such an 'eternal consciousness'? After all, most of the gods who have been proposed to exist are described as 'unchanging' yet the emotions require change.

Of course, love is an abstract word and what we might see in the world is the result of people being caught up with the emotions we call love. Thus we already have a universal, abstract noun which would be sufficient without the need to find a 'person' to embody it.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

An argument based on an assumption is unsound unless you can prove the assumption is true. However, he isn’t even making an argument. Read his wall of text again. It consists of nothing more than his irrational beliefs, his lack of proof and unsubstantiated claims stated as facts.

I tend to agree If the topic here was "Let's pretend for a moment that God exists ...." we could entertain a thought experiment about "eternal consciousness" and maybe make some progress. But in this case we really are in danger of facilitating the construction of a delusion before our very eyes. The title of the topic is: "I know God exists ..." So the klaxon is already sounding.

We've probably all seen this movie before i.e. where we get the theist to articulate their construct of God, which, when they aren't parroting dogma of a well-worn sect, they have no choice but to actually make stuff up for us as they go along. Having posted their thoughts in lights they become committed - so when challenged they must dig in and try to justify. It's not pretty and not productive. Although it is entertaining I have to say

But I think the OP has clearly rejected traditional religion - so instead of helping him make up a new one we should encourage him to go all the way.

You asked me why I believe that love is a diety or God. ... This is why I believe that Love in it's perfect form is God.

That was a non sequitur and did nothing to explain why you think love is god. It was a common story, and one which I would like to say I empathize with. But in the end, it did not answer the question asked.

I am here at this forum to get an atheist point of view. I am fully prepared for any arguments.One of the biggest problems I have are the attacks I recieve from the religous side. My take on a creator is not really accepted by most christians so I thought who better to ask than atheist. Hopefully I will be able to strengthen my understanding and open myself to new ideas.

I would like to begin by directing your attention to the fact that your version of "God" is not accepted by most Christians (and I might add, by most Muslims, Wiccans, Asatruar, Mormons, Sikhs, etc., etc., etc.). Notice that you haven't got any way to show that "your take" is correct and theirs are wrong--and neither do they. This is an inescapable fact, for you and all the other believers out there. Please keep it in mind as we continue.

I won't get into how I know God exist but for me it is not an issue of whether I believe it or not, it simply is true for me. I did not come about this belief through religous means. In general God is a being of perfect love and all things are done in order to achieve the enlightenment of his (God is neither male nor female just can't call him it) creations. I have no issues with evolution, astronomy or any other of the sciences as I am a fan of all. What matters to what I call the "Real God" is based in the emotional part of our existence and not in the physical.

Note the parts of your post I bolded above. The first is a statement of wholly subjective opinion--"for me" is the key phrase. If you had said "it simply is true," period, the statement would have had a completely different meaning. The second statement I emphasized seems to be trying to drizzle your deity in a sauce of objective existence--the 'Real God,' presumably in contrast to all the fake ones. But notice how that's preceded by the phrase "what I call." If a given deity is actually real, out there in, you know, reality, then it doesn't matter if you or I call it Realtm or not. S/he/It exists anyway. Likewise, if a given deity does not exist, it still doesn't matter if you or I call it Realtm or not. The "Real" you're inserting here isn't an actual claim about objective reality, it's only meant to have the flavor and heft of such, without the belief having to actually having to pay its freight in anticipated consequences.

Have you ever noticed that no one ever says something like "For me, thermodynamics permits perpetual motion machines" or "My Real Principle of Action and Reaction says that force equals 1.5 times acceleration" or "My Real Paris has three Eiffel Towers?" That's because when it comes to things that are actually real, the person making the claim is irrelevant. Reality is that which, when we stop believing in it, doesn't go away (Phillip K. Dick). Now it's true that the fallibility of human perception means that we all perceive reality differently. One person may recall the bank robber as tall, another as fat, but the security camera footage is definitive. We were able to determine that human perception is fallible and that our perceptions can differ by comparing our perceptions to instrumental detection and/or using experimental protocols designed to let reality impose itself on our perceptions. Or to put it another way, we know what a mirage is because we can compare it to real bodies of water. If I have $300.00 in my bank account, it doesn't matter whether it's me checking my balance or somebody else. If there are no deposits or withdrawals or bank charges, the balance will be $300.00. It's not as if I can say, "What I call my Real Bank Balance is $300 million, but the bank teller and my accountant don't accept my take." Or at least if I did, it would be obvious that I'm being foolish.

So, when you're talking about your take on what you like to call the 'Real God,' you're not telling us anything about "God," you're telling us about you. And likewise for all the other believers and their takes on what they like to call the 'Real God/Goddess/Gods.' In a snappy acronym, SPAG.

Do you see what you're doing here? You're anticipating, in advance, that Universe will behave exactly as we would expect it to, if "God" did not exist. When it comes to how you model the behavior of reality, your model does not contain a "God." You're sticking your neck out and making a prediction that you and I live in a godless Universe, and that reality will behave accordingly. Naturally, we atheists have the exact same expectation. If you thought "God" was real in the same way you think that, say, evolution by natural selection is real, you could not make that kind of prediction. A real, personal, volitional god could surprise you, by deciding to behave as if it exists. But on some level, you already know that isn't going to happen. Welcome to atheism. C'mon in, the water's fine.

as a matter of fact, the lack of physical proof is of absolute importance to the understanding of what is known as God's will.

What you're doing now is attempting to explain why the purported existence of the "God" you'd like to believe in is identical in every possible way with its non-existence. This is a way to allow yourself to wear the attire of belief in a god without actually expecting it to exist. Your god is pure and perfectly loving (not hating, like those other people's gods), gender-neutral (not patriarchal and male), doesn't hate gays, doesn't reject science, and (my guess from what you've said so far) isn't a Republican. It's like a team jersey that identifies you as nice, moderate-progressive, tolerant, and clear-thinking, but still a Person of Faithtm with the lovely rainbow-sparkle halo of devotion, "spirituality" and social acceptability that provides.

But notice that your "God" du jour can't do anything more than that, at all. There is not one fact about reality that it can explain better than its non-existence can. If offers not one iota of greater understanding, to you or anyone else. It can't offer any other advantages, like a reduced chance of being in a car accident or dying in a fire or increased odds of your stock picks rising, or anything else along those lines. The only observable benefits it offers are those linked to being part of Team NiceGod (membership in your church community if you have one, the comfort of being able to tell yourself that you'll see your deceased loved ones again in A Better Placetm, being able to fit in in a majority-theist society and so on). Those benefits may make it worth it to you to profess the belief, but they have no relation to whether or not the god exists or doesn't exist out there in real Universe.

First of all, let's drop the term "physical." It carries connotations of a pre-quantum mechanical, Cartesian understanding of reality that isn't accurate or helpful. I.e., there's this "physical" stuff, the crude matter over here on the insignificant/meaningless/"mere" side of the ledger, and the "non-physical" stuff (mind, love, "spirit," consciousness, faeries, sprites, gods, angels, the Force, etc.) over there on the lovely, sparkly side of the ledger. It turns out that "matter" is a pattern integrity of interacting energy, and it's not the sort of stuff people imagined it to be when our major religions were being invented. If the ancients had understood quantum mechanics, they'd have had to move the "physical" stuff over to the sparkly side of the ledger. If they'd understood neuroscience, they'd have had to acknowledge that the mental/"spiritual" stuff all belongs in the same pile. Turns out, it's all sparkly stuff, all the way down.

Second, "proof" is for mathematicians and the makers of alcoholic beverages. So, let us instead take the approach that asks, "Does Reality behave as if [insert "God" or any other proposed addition to our inventory of understanding here] exists?" Notice how this approach doesn't care if we're talking about "physical" or "spiritual" entities, or if there's even a distinction between one and the other. In order to ask and answer this question, we need to be able to map out anticipated consequences of the entity's existence, vs. the anticipated consequences of its non-existence. If a maximally accurate understanding of Reality is our goal, this step is crucial. All of the great scientific discoveries took place because scientists were able to stipulate in advance the experimental results they would expect if [evolution by natural selection/relativity/the existence of sub-atomic particles/the Big bang/the viability of transistors as a technology/etc., etc.] was real vs. what they would expect if [repeat insertion here] was not real. Furthermore, they could agree, prior to making the observations, which set of anticipated consequences would validate or falsify which understanding of reality. Because of this, scientists were able to deliberately set up their experiments or observations to actually test their hypotheses and let Reality itself, rather than their individual biases and preferences, decide who was right.

That's how, and why, science works. The deliberate and willful avoidance of this kind of process is also why theology doesn't work.

of God then there would be no choice. Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.

Please notice how this approach attempts to invert the relationship between the things we have a choice about, and the things we don't. First, it seeks to offer a "choice" ("free will") on the issue of whether or not "God" (in this case, the one you're proposing) exists or not. This is precisely the issue on which we don't have any choice. "God" exists, or it doesn't. Whether we like it or not. What's true is already so. Owning up to it won't make it any worse. Reality isn't optional. That's what makes it 'Reality'. If we want to know what's real and what isn't, then we need to approach the issue in a way that, as much as possible, eliminates all issues of our choices, preferences, biases, and the like and lets Reality "speak for itself." Only then can we update our mental models (belief sets, predictions of how we expect reality to behave, etc.) to reflect Reality ever more closely. It's how we become Less Wrong.

The other half of this inverted approach is the assumption that, as soon as we "choose" to "believe" that a given god/goddess/pantheon/whatever exists, that we will leap automatically to love, worship, and obedience, without any choice in how we evaluate the deity/pantheon. It's taken as a given that one could not accept that a deity exists, and not want to join its religion. But that, right there, is the key area where our choice would actually matter. That is where any god that was real and wanted to respect our "free will" would do so. All such a god would have to do is: Not Be A Rapist. If there's a woman with whom I'd like to have a loving relationship, I don't have to arrange things so that she could flip a coin on the question of whether I exist or not. To the contrary, insuring that she has no uncertainty on that issue is the inescapably necessary first step. To respect her "free will," I simply take 'no' for an answer. Or if I'm fortunate, 'yes.'

The purpose of this inversion is twofold: First, to deprive people of the ability to think critically and understand Reality accurately (so that the pronouncements of some preacher, theologian, guru, or other exponent of theological bafflegab is equal to the most rigorously-validated scientific discovery). Second, to bully and/or emotionally manipulate people into obedience to same preacher/theologian/guru. See: Pascal's Wager. Once in place, it allows a devious substitution of morality for epistemological accuracy, so that disbelief in a religion can be treated not as a legitimate disagreement about what's real, but as a crime. Hence, the whole panoply of divine wrath and Judgment Days and devils and Hells and Inquisitions and heresy hunts and all the rest. This simultaneously immunizes the priest's claims from rational critique and gives him the power to impose his will by force (real or imaginary).

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of doing this deliberately. This "free will argument" has been in use by theologians and priests for centuries before you were ever born, so it's just a part of the furniture of religion. My purpose in pointing this out is to dissect the meme and demonstrate to you how it works, so that you will now hopefully be in a better position to free yourself from its clutches--and understand why we don't buy into it.

What is true is already so.Owning up to it doesn’t make it worse.Not being open about it doesn’t make it go away.And because it’s true, it is what is there to be interacted with.Anything untrue isn’t there to be lived.People can stand what is true,for they are already enduring it.— Eugene Gendlin

OK, can any theist present here honestly give us something that would even begin to compare with what Kcrady just posted above? Theists, please study that post, learn from it, and see if you don't realize how you have been conned all your life by this religious rubbish. Unplug from the Matrix. Break your chains. Run free without Big Brother watching you. There is a way to a better future for us all, but it is NOT through religion, and religion is all that's holding us back.

The only thing I have to add is that if a god actually cared about free will, it wouldn't have to make people play guessing games about whether it actually exists or not. It would simply say, "I'm here. This is what I stand for. Your choice whether you want to follow it or not."

There's a reason a lot of ancient peoples thought of the sun as a god.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

The only thing I have to add is that if a god actually cared about free will, it wouldn't have to make people play guessing games about whether it actually exists or not. It would simply say, "I'm here. This is what I stand for. Your choice whether you want to follow it or not."

There's a reason a lot of ancient peoples thought of the sun as a god.

Believing that the sun is god can at least be forgiven, for the fact that at least the sun actually, you know, exists and makes a difference and is the giver of life.

And I like your point about free will, it's not really free will if there is not a clear choice is there? If its all left down to guessing games and choosing the correct interpretation out of thousands of possible different ones, it's not really much of an informed choice, and hardly shows an expression of free will, such as theists like to think of it.